Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2016, 07:21:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
97945 Posts in 2334 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 124
3551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 05, 2012, 12:22:23 PM
First time I ever recall Rush apoligizing.  I agree calling her names didn't help but the MSM has succeeded in deflecting the whole idea that this grown woman expects subsidized Birth control.   Now 'this' too is suddenly a 'right' and suddenly this is being used to turn women against the Repub party. 

Why does a Catholic school 'have' to pay for her BCP?   And I agree that this woman had no problem getting in front of Congress with millions of viewers on international TV to discuss her sex life.

3552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iran uses super concrete on: March 05, 2012, 12:13:03 PM
Sledge hammer ordinance may just not work.

I notice small tactical nuclear weapons are never mentioned.

This must contribute to reluctance on our military's part and the rather slim confidence Israel could do serious damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities.   Well we did give them years to dig in all the while they knew we were a paper tiger.
3553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 03, 2012, 09:09:36 AM
The idea that a 30 yo woman is "testifying" before congress because she want her BCP paid for by her school helath insurance is astounding enough.   Then to have a sitting United States President call her up to defend her from some names is unbearable.   It is unbearable the left has sunk us this low that that is an "issue" that is shoved into the forefront with as always the complicit MSM.

If this is something that hurts Republicans than all I can say is this country is beyond help.

WE are dead broke, health costs by far are the biggest threat to our nation and we can't even agree on not paying for BCP?

As an aside I don't know why insurance plans are paying for viagra drugs either.  People can/should pay out of pocket. 
My health costs are enough.  I don't need to pay more for these either.

Remember when it was determined by one health group the mammograms between 40 and 50 do more harm than good.

Then we get barraged with woman's "rights" group, all leftist liberals  (almost all Deomcrat party types).

I didn't see the same outrage when med orgs are saying we should stop doing routine PSA tests.
3554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: March 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
Here is the link to WH postage of the "long form"  It doesn't say "African American" it says the father is African.  It does use father's country of origin as Kenya which someone pointed out was a few years before the ever was a Kenya.

I am suspicious of this "form".  Yet we will never know the truth or be allowed to find out if it is a real vs forged document.
3555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mort about sums it up. on: March 02, 2012, 11:30:31 AM
3556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 02, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win.  Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate.

I predict otherwise.  Obama will lose and Mitt will win.
3557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 01, 2012, 05:45:42 PM
Sorry for all the extra verbiage above.   I should have filtered the post.

I guess when I say "narcissist" I don't mean in  a derrogatory way.  What may be a better descript would be "idealistic" that is seen in youth.

There seems to me a bit of naivity to it but age hasn't given me much in the way of answers OTOH.
3558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 01, 2012, 04:47:35 PM
Recently at a gathering the daughter of on of the doctors present called herself a "fiscal conservative" and a "social liberal".   Some years ago a member of my family donned the same self description of his political persuasion.

I think I know whence they come and how this (a bit narcisstic concept comes) yet upon reflection I find both somewhat mutually exclusive.  So does this author:

   Email Address: 
Zip Code:   

 AboutContributeContactAdvertise HereHelpConservative News, Books, & ViewsConservative Book ClubRegnery : Conservative Blog and News     
Hot Topics:Morning Briefing• Horserace• Primary Targets• Tech at NightRecent PostsLog InSign Up“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.” The Epitaph for America’s Future?

Posted by Ausonius (Diary)

Saturday, February 27th at 9:47PM EST

47 CommentsRecommenders: tcgeol (Diary), BlueStateSaint, penguin2 (Diary), redneck_hippie (Diary), Achance (Diary), nessa (Diary), Vegas_Rick (Diary), aesthete (Diary), TheSophist (Diary)
Many have read a version of the following statement from “moderates,” defined here as people who want to seem high-minded and objective by staying “above the fray.”

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”

The goal in this essay is to demonstrate the illogicality of such an oxymoron. For ultimately fiscal conservatism will be impossible, if you support social liberalism.

How does one define “social liberalism” anyway? Since I do not want to be accused of setting up strawmen to knock down, in good faith I offer the following examples of social liberalism: antagonism toward racial profiling, protecting children, and (contradictorily) killing unborn children.

Liberal political scientist Benjamin Barber, an emeritus professor at Rutgers, offers an explanation for one aspect of political correctness:

“On the belief that while classes of people and categories of action may be statistically correlated with certain kinds of behavior, those correlations do not warrant encroaching on the liberty and rights of individuals. No one is to be prejudged in their behavior or motives simply because they belong to a certain class or category.”


On the surface, no Conservative will argue with this. But consider the “failed attack” by the infamous Shoe Bomber (Richard Reid). One of the most expensive aspects of Barber’s purist attitude has been occurring for years in our airports: because of political correctness, profiling for possible suspects has not been allowed. The result is that 9-year old little girls from Cincinnati, as well as 90-year old grandmothers from Pittsburgh, are stopped, scanned, sniffed, debriefed, de-shoed, and delayed because social liberalism says not to use stereotypes…ever, even though Richard Reid and his ilk do not fit the profile of a 9-year old girl from Ohio.

Americans have been led to think, therefore, that such high-mindedness is the price one pays for safety. And what exactly is that price? It is not just an annoying, exasperated feeling while standing in line. Roughly 50 million people per month pass through American airports per month. If we place the very modest price of $10.00 on the head of every passenger for their lost time (obviously the time of many travelers is worth much more!), it means that half a billion dollars are lost every month to the American economy, $6 Billion per year, $60 billion since Mr. Shoe Bomber’s antics.

And we say and believe that his attack failed! This estimate obviously does not take into account the tax dollars spent for all the increased surveillance and the equipment: and I will openly admit, the waddling and possibly illiterate T.S.A. guards I have seen do not make me feel safer. They make me feel less wealthy, knowing that as government employees they have better benefits and pensions than I ever will!

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby offered this opinion in an essay from August 23, 2006:

“No sensible person imagines that ethnic or religious profiling alone can stop every terrorist plot. But it is illogical and potentially suicidal not to take account of the fact that so far every suicide-terrorist plotting to take down an American plane has been a radical Muslim man. It is not racism or bigotry to argue that the prevention of Islamist terrorism necessitates a special focus on Muslim travelers, just as it is not racism or bigotry when police trying to prevent a Mafia killing pay closer attention to Italians.”

Profiling will not eliminate airport security, but one wonders, if political correctness were tossed aside, could not the loss in time and efficiency be greatly reduced?

Social liberalism has led to an attitude of allowing government intervention to protect us from ourselves, from cars, from saturated fat, from incorrect sneezing, from almost any situation which can generate a bureaucracy. OHSA in the Department of Labor is now approaching $2 Billion for its budget. And of course, we must protect the children: much spending is done in the name of helping children.

But where are the limits? One small personal example: when my wife was a principal of a grade school, the board wanted to install new playground equipment. She was given a 27-page booklet from the FedGov on playground safety. It seems that the FedGov’s bureaucrats had mandated that a playground slide had to have “9 inches of mulch at the bottom,” otherwise…lawsuits were possible for not following Federal guidelines. Now who decided that “9 inches of mulch” had to be used, and how? Bureaucrats! You can imagine them in lab coats and holding clipboards, while they put crash-dummies on the slide to discover the proper depth of mulch to protect the delicate derrieres of American 9-year old children.

“Your tax dollars at work!” “Where are the limits?” Obviously none exist.

Probably most Americans do not realize that their government is involved in such minutiae: child safety taken to manic extremes is one of the unintended consequences of social liberalism.

Although not all welfare goes to children, they are the main reason often given by politicians for supporting the welfare state. And of course over the last c. 80 years, governments have taken over from the churches, private charities, families, and private individuals the care for the poor or the temporarily indigent: which tradition would be more efficient in dealing with poverty, more caring, and more likely to prevent it from increasing?

The Heritage Foundation offers the following horrifying information for the “social liberal-fiscal conservative” to contemplate:

“Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).”

“According to President Obama’s budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four.”

(My emphasis above)


In theory of course, that wipes out poverty! But we know it will not! Social liberalism does not stop poverty: if welfare-state bureaucracies actually lessened poverty, they would put themselves out of work. It is to the bureaucrats’ advantage to fertilize poverty!

However, human fertilization is something of which social liberals are usually skeptical. And here we touch upon abortion: I am aware that purely moral arguments are enough to argue against killing unborn children. The point here, however, is our “social liberal-fiscal conservative” will claim that abortion should be allowed, that it actually saves money for society, and that anyway, should not a true conservative keep government away from telling people what they can do with their bodies?

In a study called Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births by Lott and Whitley, the authors examine the costs to society of Roe vs. Wade over time. One finds the following conclusion on p.18:

“The higher estimated increases in murder imply that legalizing abortion raised the number of murders in 1998 by 1,230 and raised total annual victimization costs from all crime by at least $4.5 billion.”


Note that $4.5 Billion is for one year only. Probably a good number of RedState readers are already acquainted with demographic researcher Dennis Howard’s estimate that since Roe vs. Wade the U.S. economy has lost $37 Trillion dollars due to the loss of population. While you can debate how productive the aborted babies would have been, how many might have become criminals, welfare mothers, etc., one must ultimately assume that most people, even from the lower classes, are honest and want to succeed. So even if Howard is wildly off by 90%, that would still mean nearly a loss of $4 Trillion, which would come in handy right now to save the U.S. partially from bankruptcy! The cost to enforce anti-abortion laws would hardly affect such a sum.

Legal abortion, of course, was only part of the wider so-called Sexual Revolution 40 years ago, spawning the additional expenses of higher divorce rates (“no-fault divorce” also being part of a “socially liberal” agenda), higher illegitimacy rates, rises in STD’s and AIDS, etc. (I recall leftist columnist Ellen Goodman in the early 1980’s insisting that a crash program to cure AIDS was absolutely essential, not just for curing the afflicted, but to preserve the Sexual Revolution, i.e. to let people have casual sex with no consequences.)

I could continue into vaguer territory: what are the economic consequences of a society where mediocrity is extolled in a quest for fairness, where schools cancel awards ceremonies for fear of offending somebody, or, worse, where everyone is given an award, thus making the achievements of true winners meaningless? In the cartoon-movie The Incredibles, which shows a society where superheroes have been shut down by lawyers for the destruction and extra-constitutionality involved when the “supers” battle villains, one of the characters opines: “If everyone is super, then no one is.”

What is the cost of that kind of social liberalism/political correctness? How many future Bach’s, Curie’s, Edison’s, Einstein’s, Galileo’s, Michelangelo’s, Mother Teresa’s, Schoenberg’s, or Wright’s (Orville, Wilbur, as well as Frank Lloyd) are being stifled and stunted in our increasingly hostile-to-excellence society, or worse, are now part of hospital waste?

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”

Let that not be the epitaph for America’s future.

Sponsored Content

 Category: Abortion, Nanny State, RINO's, Welfare State

RSS feed

47 Comments Leave a comment
For Aesthete and Others: The Pro-Abortion Social Liberal Cannot Be A Fiscal Conservative
Ausonius (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:47AM EST (link)
There was a discussion on Monday under a different topic about whether abortions save society money: this diary contains my expanded thoughts on the subject.

Again, let me emphasize that the topic here is very narrow: one would never want to defend a pro-life position with only an economic argument.

My point here is to show that for someone who claims to be “fiscally conservative” but “socially liberal” his support for abortion will be a contradiction: abortions are a drain on an economy and prevent fiscal conservatism.

Still, I want to emphasize again for clarity: even if abortions saved us billions per year, one would still want to prevent them!

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
I'll get back to you on that
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 11:31AM EST (link)
Suffice it to say, I think that you’re right in your support of life, but that your analysis concerning the economics of the situation are rosy, at best. I’ll get back to you when I have the time, and thanks for following through on your promise to put up a diary on the subject.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
 And I'm back
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 5:49PM EST (link)
First, let me say that I mostly agree with your assertion that social liberalism, as a general philosophy, is incompatible with fiscal conservatism. I would say, however, that most people who label themselves as socially liberal/fiscally conservative do so out of ignorance, and actually mean to say that they are socially libertarian.

Social libertarianism ≠ social liberalism, and the broadness of the term, “social liberal”, as well as its presumed pushback against social conservatives, leads many to use the term “social liberal” for their own beliefs, even though those beliefs are more libertarian than anything else. I would broadly state that most people who call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal are not supportive of true social liberalism, which for the purposes of discussion, can be defined as an attempt to use government to promote behaviors beneficial to establishing a “classless” society. (Likewise, libertarianism could be defined as being opposed to government involvement in social engineering, and seeking equal access to government services for all citizens without discrimination.)

Small government proponents typically believe that government should undertake the fewest actions possible, and that most domestic policies are 1) ineffective and 2) that they shouldn’t be undertaken by government, given its status as the arbiter of coercive force. Given that, it could be claimed that social conservatism is incompatible with small government, considering that social conservatism calls for an expansion of government with the dubious aim of restoring a “moral” society. Regulation and outright bans of pornography and online gambling in the federal government, the War on Drugs (which, as far as I can tell, can’t be even peripherally related to any of the federal government’s express powers, and as such violates the 10th), and several other examples abound of social conservatives attempting to regulate, ban, and imprison their way to their preferred endgame. This cannot in any way be tied to fiscal conservatism, and in many ways, violates its principles, and those of federalism. Certainly, not all of social conservatism’s efforts violate the principles of small government: I applaud their attempts to move discussion of religion into the public sphere, and along with libertarians, they are oftentimes the strongest supporters of non-public education solutions.

With the exception of the drug war, I would say the agenda of social conservatives in the 80s was mostly one of repealing harmful government legislation. Later iterations of social conservatism, however, abandoned their zeal for repeal (hey, that rhymes!) and instead, have taken after their European Christian Democratic brethren in actively proposing legislation that increases government.

Perhaps a telling quote of social or “traditional” conservatives can be found in Russell Kirk’s screed attacking libertarians which, while haphazard and scattered, offers the following gem: “Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists; but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more nearly conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians. The socialists at least declare the existence of some sort of moral order; the libertarians are quite bottomless.” Regardless of the statement’s veracity (which is quite low, but I digress), there is no reasonable way in which subscribing to some moral order or other makes the conservative movement more akin to socialism than libertarianism (in which case, I suppose the fascists are also closer to conservatism than strawman-libertarianism). Sad to say, that’s where some social conservatives would like to take our party, and it is this that most fiscal conservatives rebel against when they call themselves “socially liberal”.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
excellent summary aesthete of what many of us
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:03PM EST (link)
believe. The last paragraph is amazing, I could have used it in my socon vs libertarian con battles of the past. I said pretty much the same thing but did not have the proof lol.

BTw, I have one minor quibble. As you know, there is nothing moderate about libertarian-conservatives. libertarianism is a radical view, just like the radical views of the Founders.

I am not so sure there are many who call themselves “socially liberal” who are actually libertarian. I hope you are right but I have my doubts. One some big government socons do to weaken libertarian-cons is to lump them in with “social liberals” and “fiscons”. In fact they inflate the numbers of fiscons and deflate the numbers of libertarians in our movement. That is a rhetorical tactic, and one that serves none of us well.

Molon Labe!
The founders were radicals?
Scope (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:32PM EST (link)
First time I heard that. What made them radicals?
That they were far outside the mainstream
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:45PM EST (link)
In this case, radical is not a pejorative.

Here’s a biased but mostly accurate article briefly discussing the Radical Whigs and their popularity in the Americas.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
 Probably an apt description Scope, if not very flattering
nessa (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:51PM EST (link)
Radicals, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Even aside from rebelling against the British gov’t, surely enough to make them radicals in the eyes of the British and the Tory’s here, many were adherents of “Enlightenment” which had a bad reputation, at least among the Kings and the Aristocracy that it sought to replace with individual liberty and reason.

Its not like they knew what would happen when they started the American Experiment, and there were times we could easily have gone the way of the French Revolution.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
55 nessa
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 8:44PM EST (link)
I know I was using the term in a positive way. They risked their own necks when they already were leading pretty dang good lives compared to everyone else in the world. They must have had a very great motivation to do that.

You know, it has been argued that the most free person on earth in 1760 was colonial american. The key point is this included the average British Citizen.

Some may say this diminishes the ideas of the Revolution, I say it amplifies them.

Molon Labe!
Thanks Doc, I was right there with you.
nessa (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 9:00PM EST (link)
I discovered an interesting fact last week. There is a High School down the street from me named 71st School. I, and most citizens here have always thought it was named after a street. Not Hardly! It is named after the 71st Regiment of Foot, a Tory Regiment raised here to fight with the British.

And we think our political atmosphere is charged? I think the Colonial Americans would find it tame and boring. I mean when was the last time we had a good old fashioned tar and feathering?

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
very true Nessa
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 9:13PM EST (link)
the worst abuses in the revolution were colonial on colonial. If you really hated a guy, you charged him with being a Rebel or Tory, depending where you lived. I am not saying this about everyone of course, but it happened all the time. And as you say, tar and feathering was not fun. It was not some humorous thing it is often portrayed as, unless you like third degree burns and possible death.

Hmm, you had a Tory regiment? I will make a wild guess and say New York? Or maybe South Carolina? those are just guesses.

Molon Labe!
Fayetteville, NC Doc. I wasn't so much surprised
nessa (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 11:15PM EST (link)
that it was here, the revolution wasn’t all that popular, but for the school to be named after it now was much more so. But then the race baiters hadn’t been invented yet and now that they have they use their ire for the Founding Fathers. The Daughters of the Confederacy still quietly place the Stars and Bars on the veterans graves for Memorial Day but I’ve never heard of a school named after a Confederate Regiment.

Many of the Scots who emigrated here were loyalists, to include Flora MacDonald who, in 1745 had smuggled Bonnie Prince Charlie out of England hidden under her skirts. The Colonial Governor had encouraged Scottish immigrants by granting them a 10 year tax exemption and land grants.

The history here is fascinating, from that, to the “hornet’s nest of rebellion,” in Charlotte and Colonel Sevier bringing the “Overmountain Men” across the Appalachians from Tennessee and western Virginia to fight a Tory Regiment at Kings Mountain, one of the pivotal battles of the Revolution. The Whigs (our side, lol) took over 800 prisoners at that battle. Every last one of them escaped (home to his farm) within a couple days, along with a fair portion of the Whigs who captured them.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
very interesting Nessa
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 5:10AM EST (link)
Well I did guess A Carolina lol. It is true there were many Tories down there. BTW, I found the school’s website and they do not mention the Tory Regiment. They claim it was named after the Highlander Regiment of which many of them served.

Don’t worry, I believe you over them, but I did find the whitewashing interesting. As you say, there is no huge deal that their were Tory Regiments, we all know that. I even would not be that offended if say so many in the town served because it is history. But if they are covering it up, hmmm 

Molon Labe!
I'll check their website, thanks Doc
nessa (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 11:18AM EST (link)
I got the information from another website, I’ll have to do a little more investigation. History is always interesting.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
Doc, whitewashed, mayby not exactly...
nessa (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 12:51PM EST (link)
The schools website says they were named for the famed Highland Scots who fought for Bonnie Prince Charley and the Jacobite cause in the 1740s.

What they didn’t mention, intentionally or due to a technicality, was that they were indeed Loyalists, though not retaining the 71st Highlanders name. From the website of The North Carolina Highland Regiment- 71st Highlanders, a group of Revolutinary War Re-enactors…

Unit began in 1776 when North Carolina’s governor Joeseph Martin, convinced King George III that, he, Martin could raise 10,000 Loyalists who could march to Wilmington, join forces
with English troops, and quell the growing rebellion in the south.

An army of 1600 loyalists, mainly Highland Scots, gathered in
Cross Creek ( now Fayetteville ) and began the 90-mile march to Wilmington, the men designated only as North Carolina Highanders were on their way to becoming part of the
Royal Highland Emigrants (later know, 84th Regiment of Foot)
then forming in Halifax.

Less than 20 miles from Wilmington, Rebels defeated the
Loyalists at Moore’s Creek Bridge. Most of the North Carolina
Highlanders were paroled, but the already-commisioned group
never can to fruition…. until Cornwallis.

When Martin learned in 1780 that Crown Forces under
Cornwallis would again appear in force in the province, Martin
re-ssued the commisions, the group was reformed again as The North Carolina Highland Regiment, an independant royal
light infantry unit consisting of over 600 men. Many of them
were the soldiers from the ill-fated Cross Creek muster four
years earlier. The regiment had blue jackets made locally,
borrowed kilts and hose of the 71st Regiment of Foot who
were now wearing military overalls.

I’m going to have to check out the Highland Regiment, it will be interesting and a couple of those gentlemen, dressed in their kilts and blue coats, hung about with powder horns and Brown Bess would be able to deliver a stunning classroom instruction on the Founding of America and the Constitution in any of the local schools.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
I think we have it Nessa
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 2:05PM EST (link)
so technically the school is not named after the Loyalist regiment but the Highland regiment. Men from the area did join a loyalist regiment but it was not called the 71st Regiment of Foot. That is what I have been able to glean, are we agreed or is more snooping required 

Molon Labe!
Thats got it Doc! nt
nessa (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 2:14PM EST (link)
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
          check out this book Scope, it won the Pulitzer
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 8:32PM EST (link)

Wood is one of our greatest Revolutionary historians. I am not going to go into detail on the argument but we can certainly agree we made a “radical” change from the Monarchical, class societies of that era, and those of our forbears.

Molon Labe!
"Radical" vs. "Conservative" Revolutionaries
Ausonius (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 10:51AM EST (link)
In History one often sees revolutionaries couching their position as a return to an original, higher, uncorrupted state.

A great example of this is Martin Luther, who believed that his reforms took Christianity back to a first-century A.D. purity lacking in the Church of his day. He viewed this as a conservative position, but knew of course that it would be seen otherwise. “Radical” goes back to the Latin for “root” (as in “radish” and implies a complete “uprooting” of society and starting from scratch.

One can debate how radical Luther really was.

However, his true conservatism – I am not using the term in our American sense here – is seen when he wants nothing to do with the politicization of his Reformation. He is immediately on the side of the political status quo, and wants nothing to do with peasants demanding an expansion of rights! He sees them as rabble who, if they dare to revolt, deserve only to be beaten down by the nobles.

Another example is the musical revolutionary Arnold Schoenberg, who believed that his (radical) “atonal” music was a logical development from Brahms and Wagner. Schoenberg rejected the term for himself, even though people called him constantly “revolutionary.” Musicologist Willi Reich wrote an analysis of him called: “Schoenberg, The Conservative Revolutionary.”

Schoenberg himself, to show he was following logical musical trends, wrote an essay called “Brahms, The Progressive” which Brahms probably would not have appreciated! 

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
   That's a good quibble you have there
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 7:37PM EST (link)
At the upper levels, actual libertarian decision-makers tend to be few and far in between, and social liberals/fiscal conservatives abound (which is probably a function of the libertarian philosophy’s even greater aversion to government than conservatism, as well as the predilection for East Coast conservatives to be more authoritarian). In that sense, social conservatives can largely substantiate the claim that they are better practitioners of fiscal conservatism than the mythologized social liberal/fiscal conservatives. Among us voting hoi polloi, however, I’d say that there’s a fair amount of people, particularly those “South Park conservatives” who grew up in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, who broadly see social conservatives as the guys who tried to impeach Clinton on trumped-up charges and expanded government under Bush, however unfair such a narrative might be, and who have adopted the label to, essentially, run as far away from that behavior as they could. I would also include those who hold largely libertarian views, but who as a result of the Civil Rights movement, don’t hold federalist views, as those who define themselves thus: many times, they see the federal government as being the appropriate authority in social disputes, and have no problems with Eisenhower-esque intervention in that regard. Both of these groups are classical liberals, but have a negative aversion towards being associated with the stereotype of social conservatives, and some have an aversion to associating themselves with libertarians and their conspiracy theories, as well. Of course, some social liberals know well what they advocate, but the overwhelming majority of those classify themselves as “moderate” or progressive, due to the large amounts of federal funding needed to carry out the socially liberal vision.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
  Defining "Socially Liberal" Aesthete
Ausonius (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 8:17PM EST (link)
was one of the problems I had in my opening essay, as mentioned.

Your analysis would seem to work for many of them at least: many thanks!

And you usually cannot go wrong by quoting Russell Kirk! 

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
  Concerning abortion
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 6:17PM EST (link)
Concerning abortion, a good argument could possibly be made in favoring restrictions because of the potential economic output of those who were killed prematurely as a result of a lack of regulation. However, fiscal conservatism has not traditionally concerned itself with the general economy of the nation (one reason why it typically opposes Keynesianism). Instead, it tends to focus on government finances.

Since abortions are committed disproportionately by low-income blacks and hispanics, we should view a prohibition of abortion (assuming that the policy is effective) as an increase in the low-income black and hispanic population. The facts are these: 1) low-income citizens in the US typically pay no taxes, and receive money from the government in the form of tax credits. 2) low-income hispanics and blacks are disproportionately more likely to commit crime, especially violent and property crime. 3) Low-income citizens are eligible for a gamut of federal government programs, such as Medicaid and welfare, as well as other state programs. 4) Low-income blacks and hispanics have a greater proclivity towards being involved in the drug trade, and other illegal activities. Given this information, it is unlikely that pro-life policies would lead swelling government coffers. To play devil’s advocate, there are two main effects that I can think of that would mitigate these costs: the fact is that, when one grows older, one’s income tends to go up. Though this, unfortunately, holds much less true statistically for low-income blacks and hispanics (particularly for those raised in single-parent households), it does, indeed, happen, and the tax revenues from this elevated status later in life would likely be positive. Second, the multiplier effect, wherein these additional consumers spend on other things, might indirectly raise tax revenues through additional wages, hirings, and so on of individuals who are net payers in the system. (This will probably not be very large, however, as most money will initially go towards local businesses, whose owners may be on the same (non-payer) boat as themselves.) Considering all of the above, it seems to me that, short-term, at least, government at all levels would on net have to pay for this increase in low-income population. Besides all of this, if one is only considering fiscal conservatism, it is unlikely that the economically efficient number of abortions is zero. Though it is probably not the number Roe v. Wade allows, this would effectively make the utilitarian pro-choice.

Fortunately, there’s a more compelling argument to be made to libertarians (who, by and large, comprise the group of “social liberals/fiscal conservatives” that you reference) concerning life issues: government is meant to protect peoples’ rights and maximize their freedom; as murder is a massive and direct curtailment of said rights and freedoms, the libertarian believes that the government has a legitimate role in preventing murder from occurring, and in using its coercive force to correct for such happenings. Since a fetus is biologically alive, has unique DNA, and is responsive to external stimuli, it cannot objectively be stated to not be a live human (at least, not in any way significantly distinguishable from an infant up to 6 months). As killing an infant would lead to repercussions, so too should the termination of a fetus’s life be subject to repercussions as a curtailment of that pre-born child’s right to living unmolested.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
  Ausonius, I had a similar observation for other reasons....
penguin2 (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 9:30AM EST (link)
in that diary. I was commenting with dpaitsel who became DRayRaven during the thread, and I made the simple observation that fiscal conservative and socially liberal was an oxymoron. My remarks to him had to do with the Great Society programs, etc. See my comment here. He came back and said he was not socially liberal, a social libertarian. Never did come back and define that one for me. The other question I would ask and no one who describes themselves as “fiscal conservative/socially liberal” has answered, is where is the fiscal restraint to be found? Only by gutting the military? And as you pointed out that certainly would not be enough.

I wonder if this disceptive phrase is really coming from the Left and perhaps relates to something Beagle wrote about with his diary, Partisan Tolerance.

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills

Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Many Thanks for Your Comments! The Distortion of Language
Ausonius (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 9:57AM EST (link)
is the hallmark of Leftists/Communists as Orwell pointed out in “1984″ over 60 years ago.

I will be “tolerant” enough to admit that people exist who really do not see the oxymoronic aspect of their beliefs, that they really think you can be socially liberal and a fiscal conservative simultaneously.

But in other aspects, no, they know what they are doing: trying to play the game both ways, distorting the issues, claiming to be on the other side at least partially in order to show how “moderate” and willing to compromise they are.

Another term for them is RINO! 

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Libertarians or Libertines
Beaglescout (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 1:43PM EST (link)
IMHO, the problem is in the second word above. Legal abortions, legal prostitution, legal drugs, no more wars, are all “libertarian” positions that are nothing less than libertine ideas of convenience for these mostly young, mostly male, progressive and ronulan agitators.

 “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton   

Study at Redstate University
Laissez-faire Libertarians Might Sound Good At First
Ausonius (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 5:38PM EST (link)
as you point out, BeagleScout (Is that a reference to Snoopy?),
until one sees the consequences, and suddenly you are in a “do your own thing-Peace-Love-Dope” ’60′s fantasyland of irresponsibility.

Some of my “smarter” former students who stayed in contact with me became libertarians in their 20′s, so your comment is not without some foundation.

And speaking of former McGovern and Carter voters, Mrs. Ausonius, before she fell under my power, had also voted for them. After experiencing a gentle yet forceful Vulcan mind-meld, she has never lost her distaste for Dems! 

Aesthete is correct: “If you only knew the power of the Reagan right!” (Booming bass voice with fist clenched).

Many thanks to all for the comments and recommendations!

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
   My Position
TeddyMalone (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 2:42PM EST (link)
My position is that the federal government has no authority to fund the social programs that it funds — including social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. I realize that battle was lost in the 1930′s, but that is my position and I believe that my position is what the Founders intended.

I also believe that many of the programs that masquerade as economic programs are really social programs that were not intended to be regulated under the commerce clause. For example, federal pollution standards are viewed as being supported by the commerce clause. I disagree. I think they are public health issues and thus should be handled under the health, welfare, moral, and police power of the states.

I think the federal government should only fund national defense, fix weights and measures, establish a patent office, regulate trade with foreign nations, create a uniform currency etc. All the programs enumerated in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8 “Powers of Congress” . And that is it. Nothing more.
  I consider myself Socially Libertarian and My Definition is Very different but I think Constitutionally Correct
TeddyMalone (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 2:32PM EST (link)
As a “social libertarian”, (and adamant fiscal conservative) I don’t think you have really defined my beliefs.

The issue is not that I support abortion (or other “socially liberal” views), it is that I do not believe that many of the issues raised by social conservatives should be addressed at the federal level.

I believe that the constitution very strictly enumerates the power of the federal government. Congress is not supposed to exceed that authority. Many (though I recognize not all) of the social conservative principles call on the federal government to act — and I think social regulation is beyond the authority of what the Founders intended the Federal government to regulate.

For example, I don’t think the federal government should ban abortion. That is not because I am pro-abortion. My understanding of what the Founders intended was that police powers (such as the authority to prevent and prosecute murder) was intended to be handled by the states.

I think we crossed the line during Roosevelt’s New Deal and have continuously expanded federal authority since. I do not support continuing that approach since I believe it is unconstitutional.

So, it isn’t that I support liberal social policies. I just don’t think the federal government should be involved in most of those issues. Those were intended (in my view) to be handled at the state level.
P.S. Just Because I consider myself Libertarian Doesnt Mean I support RonPaul
TeddyMalone (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 2:34PM EST (link)
At first I admit I kinda liked Ron Paul, but after a few months I realized he was a fraud and a wacko.
On social issues, you are a federalist
redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 2:39PM EST (link)
not necessarily the same thing as a social liberal.

 Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
I don't consider myself liberal in any way
TeddyMalone (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 2:46PM EST (link)
Maybe it is a matter of a bad choice of language though.

I thought social libertarian fit because I define libertarian as implying limited involvement by the federal government.

Maybe it would be clearer to argue I was a federalist.

In a way, maybe instead of fiscal conservative/social libertarian, just stating I am a fiscally conservative federalist may be more accurate.

Thanks for the comment and the idea.
You're welcome. As you learn more
redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:05PM EST (link)
about conservatism, and what it means to be a conservative, things will clear up as far as naming your principles. The problem for a lot of people is that they know only what media and politicians and pundits say about conservatism. Don’t fall into the trap of believing those who claim they are the only True Conservatives, and who want the federal government to decide on social issues. Not true, and not even close to true. True Conservative is a label that followers of people like Mike Huckabee choose for themsevles, their most distinguishing characteristic being they demand constitutional amendments to outlaw social practices with which they disagree.

Many of our members here started out as democrats and even liberal democrats. I myself voted for Dukakis and Carter. Now I am a traditionalist conservative.

 Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Dude, I voted for
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:14PM EST (link)
George McGovern.

LOL. McGovern was who I was
redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:22PM EST (link)
trying to remember his name. I was only about 21 years old and that was a looooooooong time ago.

Now my idea of a flaming liberal is Huckabee. How life experience changes one’s outlook.

 Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
 LOL becker, did you have to chisel the "X" onto the ballot?
nessa (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:36PM EST (link)
I tried to resist but it was hopeless.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Contributor to Unified Patriots

teh twitter
 Yes but then you saw the light....
SteveLA (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:39PM EST (link)

Or was it one of those deals where you went into a voting booth and the ballot went “Out Demon…out”….  and you started voting on the right side? LOL


Competency over ideological purity and litmus tests
Yep, it was pretty terrible
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:45PM EST (link)
but ultimately, the power of Reagan compelled him 

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
My first Presidential vote was for Ford
SteveLA (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 4:00PM EST (link)
Of course I grew up in the Dixecrat South and was just about disowned for voting for a ***gasp*** Republican. By ’76 the Democrats had just about imploded after the turn way Left after Chicago ’68 and McGovern ’72.

The Republican party was way different in ’76 than today, with the effects of Lee Atwater’s Southern Strategy having not been felt.


Competency over ideological purity and litmus tests
   So, you're the one...
rbdwiggins (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:50PM EST (link)
that canceled-out my vote for Nixon…

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
 Sheepishly he admits ... me too. nt
Achance (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:58PM EST (link)
In Vino Veritas
Well, in my case, I voted for McGovern
redneck_hippie (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 4:12PM EST (link)
when I was carrying my first child (I was 23, not 21 as I said before). The day she was born, I woke up with labor pains, and the radio was playing, “The Day The Music Died.”

But it didn’t.

 Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
    call yourself what you want Teddy, heck maybe
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, March 1st at 5:28AM EST (link)
you will coin a new term! I have found that “libertarian-conservative” seems to go over well. Many called Milton Friedman a part of the “libertarian-right”. Uncle Milt is one of my ideological kinsmen. His views were very close to mine. Of course Reagan was a real hero and Goldwater was Mr. Conservative (libertarian).

For me it is simple. If you read the Constitution and you believe in it and the Founders, you will end up a conservative. If you then listen to the pulpit, or are affected by your local culture, you might alter your stance on government or societal intervention.

I think all conservatives of all stripes should be welcome, we simply don’t want or need those that pretend to be conservative but are really statists. I think that group is on the wane, maybe they have finally seen what to much power in one place can do.

In our nation it is the people that were given the power. Ever since they have been giving it back.

Molon Labe!
    One problem
Menlo (Diary) Sunday, February 28th at 3:08PM EST (link)
Your point makes sense regarding government spending on entitlement programs.

But what exactly do you do under a Constitution that empowers the federal government to ensure states offer equal protection?

Few people today would want to entirely follow the intent of the founders, largely because of their defense of practices that people today consider wrong.

I’d guess close to 80 or 90 percent of the population sees all levels of government the same in most cases. They don’t care which it is; they just want it to “do more” or “do less” at any and every level.

“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
  Very good post
constitutionalconservative (Diary) Tuesday, March 2nd at 12:36AM EST (link)
Don’t agree entirely with everything here, but you are right on target in saying that fiscal conservatism implies certain choices which effectively preclude social liberalism
 Simple test: homocons
TheSophist (Diary) Tuesday, March 2nd at 1:30AM EST (link)
What a great essay in many ways. Well written, researched, and great points.

However, I rather think that the straw man you knocked down with such elegance is not the real representative of the “fiscal conservative, social liberal” mindset.

The simple test, to me, is what happened at CPAC this year. Those who shouted down Ryan Sorba are more properly folks I think have the mindset of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”. (

One could, I suppose, make the argument that fiscal conservatism requires that we oppose gay marriage: such unions do not result in children, and therefore, the economic health of the nation is threatened by the lack of future workforce.

Whether that argument is or is not compelling to you, I think, determines whether you are “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” or not in the _usual_ sense of the term in modern politics.


“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” – Ronald Reagan
But one could also argue
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, March 2nd at 2:14AM EST (link)
That, because of the proclivity for homosexuals to have higher incomes, and because of the net deficit of couples who want to adopt to children in need of adoptions, gay marriage plus adoptive rights would, on the whole, increase the economic health of the nation by allowing for wealth to not disappear/go to the government upon death (in addition to the human capital imparted by these couples to their artificial progenitors). I suppose one would have to say, in order for your argument to hold, that the capital formed by additional gay unions < income lost because of less marriages. Since I don’t believe that marriage rates would be affected by a potential extension of government marriage to homosexual couples, I see that scenario as somewhat unlikely. (And, if we are only looking at the economics of the situation, I imagine that an analysis of different social arrangements, such as polygamy, would have to be looked at, to ensure that the maximally efficient solution would be chosen.) I, personally, prefer the creation of civil unions for all couples without regard as to their sexual identity or lack thereof, and the returning of marriage to social institutions (churches, synagogues, and the like) which would be better guardians of such a sacred contract.

Different viewpoints, different arguments, but whatever the case, it once again shows the error in making long-term economic projections based on social programs, and lays bare the intellectual folly of programs justified solely because of their social engineering value. The moral argument is often the best one, and although “Because God says so” might not be a particularly compelling argument for the intellectual or the debonair socialite, I have found that it is often a better reason for support of a given action or philosophy than convoluted arguments about utility, economic efficiency, and other secular concerns. Good night, brother!

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
  Staistical Correlations on "Socially Liberal - Fiscally Conservative" Politicians
Ausonius (Diary) Tuesday, March 2nd at 8:18AM EST (link)
Many thanks for all the comments above!

Thinking that a “pro-life Dem” might show some fiscal conservatism,
I went to the politicians’ ratings of the National Taxpayers Union and compared them to ratings from the National Right-To-Life Foundation.

One might assume that a “pro-life Dem,” e,g, Bart Stupak of Michigan, might be rated decently by the NTU.

But no, he earns a very low “F” from them.


Stupak is only a 50% pro-lifer, by the way. Another 50% pro-life Michigander, Dale Kildee, gets an incredibly low “F” of 3% for fiscal conservatism.

Ike Skelton of Missouri, a 75% pro-life Dem from Missouri, has an “F” of 12%from the NTU.


I have not had time to correlate every member of Congress: but you can check yours through the above websites.

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
 And For The Senate...?
Ausonius (Diary) Tuesday, March 2nd at 9:49AM EST (link)
Here is the website from the National Right-To-Life statistics for the Senate:

Skimming through quickly, between these scores and those of the National Taxpayers Union you see libberal are liberals.

Lieberman, for example, has miserable single digit ratings from both.

The Mainiac Sisters are at 50% for pro-life, and 33% for fiscal conservatism.

Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.

Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
 Leave a CommentClick here to cancel "reply". Comment title:   
Your thoughts:
(smaller size
larger size)   
  Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.
«Conservatives and The Butterfly Effect, or, Why Chaos Is Better Than Control!
George Soros and the Manipulation of MAObama’s America»
 Get Local
ColoradoFloridaGeorgiaPennsylvania Select state Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming  COMMENTS
COMMENTS Nice try, but not accurate by justvisiting's the thing, hero... by APA Guy (Diary)
Duplicate post? by RDCook (Diary)
Controlling the message by RDCook (Diary)
Boy, do I need to watchc my punctuation. (^:^) nt by Flagstaff (Diary)
You know? by aesthete (Diary)
correction by Scope (Diary)
Newt Gingrich told Cavuto today that he is against ending tax credit/subsidies energy by Scope (Diary)
Coulter's positions have entirely unravelled in her attempts to support Romney by JSobieski (Diary)
exactly right. Although some social conservatives took issue with some of his statements by JSobieski (Diary)
Calling a man who leaves a young woman to drown by aesthete (Diary)
UUNNN-KAY, now I remember. by funwithknives
"Party Unity" led us to McCain and Romney in the first place by redcal
Patrish, you really don't want to go down this path by lineholder (Diary)
You need to do some research by irishgirl
He also expanded it by lapert
It's been said of the MSM by aesthete (Diary)
Tbone...ROFL! [nt] by lineholder (Diary)
excellent, toby by Jeff Emanuel (Diary)
Again T-bone by Patrish
Uh, if breathing wasn't controlled by the brain stem by Tbone (Diary)
Coulter's a jerk, not a lawyer. by Viet71 (Diary)
Compliment of Human Events by lineholder (Diary)
Who, Vladimir? He's a Red State regular. by acat (Diary)
Calling Steve Maley, aka Vladimir by lineholder (Diary)
So, Pat, have you ever heard of the "Electoral College? by Tbone (Diary)
thanks by independentconservative
HIPPA comes to mind, lapert. by acat (Diary)
OK, you got me stumped, by funwithknives
We have little other choice than to fight with what we have by lineholder (Diary)
The Supreme Court has more power than the president or congress. by Viet71 (Diary)
Logically Consistent In Fact...For a Leftist by Ausonius (Diary)
"Here's a good spot for ColdWarrior in 3...2...1... " by ColdWarrior (Diary)
We covered that by lapert
Heh. The one you should really be calling is Vladimir. by acat (Diary)
rsklaroff, I really do think if Jindal got in soon he could build it in time, and I think it would be a smart move on the part of the party to support him if he did by center77 (Diary)
Aw C'mon, 'cat by funwithknives
I don't think so by lapert
Oh my by citizenkh (Diary)
Thank your favorite diety for Citizens United by Viet71 (Diary)
RECOMMENDED DIARIESMN SEN - I'd like a side of delicious irony
by Hooah_Mac (Diary)
Steve Foley Web Ad: Say No to Career Politicians #CA-47
by Black River Wolf (Diary)
I could never hold his sword, but I will take up mine again
by mustango (Diary)
I Blame Us All. Don't Worry: You Will Too.
by Thomas Crown (Diary)
The Ntrepid Endorsement (Preview: Speaker Gingrich is NOT Up to the Task)
by ntrepid (Diary)
Gallup Poll Results: 72% of All Americans Believe Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional
by lineholder (Diary)
Busted! Two Serial Liars Team Up! Ron Paul giving Romney a free pass in Virginia despite them Two being the only Ones on the Ballot
by abierubin (Diary)
It's time for Rick Perry to climb back on the horse.
by tooncesthecat (Diary)
Christian Pastor Nadarkhani is facing an Iranian Death Sentence and needs help
by center77 (Diary)
In The Land Of The Free, The Brave Pay More
by dunestar (Diary)
REDHOT Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh Looks like the Elizabeth Warren boomlet has faded...
 Dan McLaughlin: ICYMI, a fantastic Perils of Portland piece by @Heminator #rsrh
 Neil Stevens: LightSquared is hyping internal DoD docs even as it opposes disclosing internal FCC docs. Hmm. #rsrh
 Steve Maley: O’Reilly Is An Idiot On Gas Prices » Say Anything #rsrh
 Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh The other Snowe-shoe drops?
 Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh Mitt Romney and suburbanites: key to opening up the map?
 Steve Maley: FrackNation update: 2000+ supporters, > 90% of goal raised. See 1st footage now. #rsrh
 Steve Maley: Headline: "Global Warming Is Making The World Colder." #wuwt #rsrh
 Steve Maley: “@EdMorrissey: Landrieu blasts Salazar over Obama admin policies on domestic drilling " #RSRH
 Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh The major thing to take away from the Michigan result
3559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brietbart on: March 01, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
What I found interesting are the posts after the short Malkin post.

Liberals who are so kind, thoughtful, heartful:
3560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 01, 2012, 11:50:56 AM
Iran is consistently marching towards nuclear weapons.  I don't see any ambiguity.

"Sources at the WH, generals, etc one come out and say the military option  is not viable .

The next day we hear that there is no alternative to military force in stopping Iran.

Another day we hear absurd proclomations that military force is "on the table".

The next day we hear people railing against the Israelis to not take action into their own hands.

The following day we hear that we are not abandoning the Jews.

Every day we hear some talking joker on cable proclaiming that the best choice is diplomacy.

Today Cogressman Ellison is on the MSNBC station saying we simply need to talk more with the Iranian leadership and that is more or less are only option.

Iranians are not stupid.  They can see the waffling just as I can.
3561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction Snow retiring on: February 29, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
Rush on radio today has it right.

Naturally the MSM turns this  into a rap against the Tea Party and in general the Republican party.

Somehow she can't just go queitly.  It has to be emphasized that she is just soooo depressed by partisanship (aka the right of her) and *they* are by implication ruining the country and her great work in moving this country foward will be sorely missed.

He is exactly right.  The MSM always turns anyone who complains about partisinship into this sort of story line (those dirty Tea baggers are destroying progress, and the ability to move this country forward)

Rush is also right when he explains in his usual descript way how the Democrats have decided they must win by turning this into the 50% on the dole vs those who are paying.  They publically call them the 1% but they are really waging war on the rest of all of those who are footing their bills.  Taxpayers HAVE become the new class of SLAVES in this country.

Any more get into that group and the death of this country as we know it can already be engraved on the tombstone.
3562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Cross between ET and Cousin IT on: February 28, 2012, 02:14:30 PM
3563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 28, 2012, 01:30:41 PM
I would also add that when the consensus is the market is going higher that might be an indicator to sell.

In any case Webury on one hand states one cannot predict the future so long term holding is the answer.

OTOH he predicts we are going up another 20% this year.

Well, if we do I hope its after November 2 - not before.
3564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Santorum on: February 28, 2012, 11:01:12 AM
Some have been reporting that Michigan primary is a bit of an anomaly in that Democrats can vote in it.   Something about unions are getting some of their members who are able to vote in this and mess up the Republicans - ie. help Romney lose.

I really question how much of the "support" for Santorum is more cynically driven rather than real blue collar support.
3565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 28, 2012, 10:57:29 AM
"Wesbury has called the past year better than we have"


This time.
3566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: February 28, 2012, 10:02:49 AM

Sure Jew could be used in a way that is more of an insult.   Like "that Jew".  Could be for anything I guess.  Like that "American".

Like that "Arab".   Like that "Communist"  that "Nazi". 

Fitzgerald - made up by founder.

I forgot you did mention that.

Yes it does sound like the firm may have been run with faith based nepotism in mind.  Perhaps it just gravitated that way.

As for labels many inferences are best understood only in context.

Like calling one a liberal could just be a form of adjective describing/summarizing one's political views.

OTOH when I call someone a liberal I am clearly thinking derrogatory thoughts.   wink
3567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Unions on: February 28, 2012, 09:53:35 AM
Mention the word Ponzi scheme and your are vilified as a cook, a jerk, an idiot by the liberal MSM.

The endless shell games by those in power.

Private concerns would be subject to laws, law suits.

The government can do whatever it wants.
3568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 28, 2012, 09:44:24 AM
"but it’s the long-term bulls, who believe in the steady progress of technology and wealth creation, that make money most consistently."

I thought the same thing just before the tech crash and lost a lot.

Of course one can do index funds, berkshire hathaway stuff that was not "dotcom".

3569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 27, 2012, 01:47:20 PM

what is your analysis of the politico report?
3570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: February 27, 2012, 11:24:26 AM
"is the word "Jew" offensive?"

Of course I only speak for myself.  As for me the answer is no.

Anymore than I would think calling one Irish, Mormon, Catholic, Polish would be offensive.

Let me ask you this though:

"Cantor Fitzgerald; a Jewish firm"

I am not sure what this means.  Was Cantor Fitzgerald owned and run by Jews as a "Jewish" firm?

Fitzgerald?  WHy not a Jewish/Irish firm?

You worked there and are not Jewish.

3571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / polls all over the place on: February 27, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
Politico headlines Obama approval at 53% and kicking the behinds of all Republican comers.

Rasmussen on Drudge has hime losing to most Repubs and getting less than I think 45%.

I suspect Rasmussen is closer to the truth. 

To me Brock is getting more and more desperate.

We heard "class" card now "race" card on Drudge.  These are desperation moves IMO.

Anyone want to wager that once Romney gets the nomination and he gets to focus he will win in November?

I'll make that bet now.  How about the cost of one postage stamp?
3572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The sister article from economist on: February 27, 2012, 09:13:26 AM
Of course we don't know what the truth is behind all these analyses.  Does Israel really know what is going on in Iran or the US or is what they know what we are reading?  This analyses includes what Israel can and cannot do conventionally.  Their air power is somewhat limited.   Waiting HAS allowed Iran to dig deeper.  According to this article US airpower would be better but it sounds like the long term is to go after the scientists as well as the sites.  This would require hitting civilian sites and some sort of ground game.

The world kept kicking the can down the road (I agree with GM) constantly avoiding the military option hoping for a peaceful solution.   Now that that choice has led us to here we can either choose to accept a nuclear Iran or not.

It is worth noting that in one of the articles I posted it was pointed out that after the US bombed and invaded Iraq Iran actually may have backed away from their nuclear program suggesting that they may well have feared a forceful intervention and THAT THAT had a desired affect.   Maybe there is a lesson in that.

****Attacking Iran
Up in the air
The probability of an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme has been increasing. But the chances of it ending the country’s nuclear ambitions are low
Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition

THE crisis has been a long time coming. Iran started exploring paths to nuclear weaponry before the fall of the shah in 1979. Ten years ago the outside world learned of the plants it was building to provide “heavy” water (used in reactors that produce plutonium) and enriched uranium, which is necessary for some types of nuclear reactor, but also for nuclear weapons. The enrichment facilities have grown in capability, capacity and number; there has been work on detonators, triggers and missile technology, too.

Iran wants, at the very least, to put itself in a position where it has the expertise and materials with which to build deliverable nuclear weapons quickly. It may well want, at some point, to develop the bombs themselves. This is deeply worrying to Israel, which is threatened by Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and disgusted by the anti-Semitic rants of Iran’s leaders. It also alarms Arab states, which fear Iranian power (and their own Shiite minorities). That alarm could lead some of them—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, perhaps Turkey—to seek nuclear weapons of their own. Many fear that this would make the region even less stable than it is. Even if it did not, it would make the possible consequences of instability much more terrible.

In this section
»Up in the air
From half-hearted to harsh


Related topics
United States
Armed forces
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear weapons
International relations
Outside powers, especially America, would give a great deal to avoid the prospect of an emboldened, nuclear-armed Iran. Hence ever-stronger sanctions designed to get Iran to cease enrichment and content itself with reactor fuel made elsewhere. Hence, also, a willingness by America and others to keep open the option of military strikes.

In Israel that willingness has hardened close to the point of commitment. Israel has nuclear weapons itself, including submarine-based weapons that could posthumously annihilate any aggressor who destroyed the country. But this deterrent is not enough to stop Israelis from seeing a nuclear Iran as the precursor to a second holocaust. The problem is that military action will not necessarily bring about what Israel wants—and could, in the medium to long term, make matters worse.

Short fuses

The possibility of an Iranian bomb comes closer with every revolution of the centrifuges in its underground enrichment plants (see article). Israel’s director of military intelligence, Major-General Aviv Kochavi, says that Iran has obtained 4 tonnes of uranium enriched to 3.5% and another 100kg enriched to 20%, which the Iranians say is for a research reactor in Tehran. If further enriched to 90% (which is not that hard once you have got to 20%) the more enriched uranium would be enough for up to four nuclear weapons. General Kochavi says that from the moment Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave the order, it would take the Iranians a year to make a crude device and another year or two to put together a nuclear warhead that would fit on a ballistic missile. American analysts, who imagine a broader-based approach to developing a nuclear capability, rather than a crash programme, think it would take a bit longer.

Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, talks of the Iranian programme entering a “zone of immunity” well before any bombs are built. This year some of Iran’s centrifuges have been moved to a previously secret facility near the holy city of Qom. This site, Fordow, is buried deep within the bowels of a mountain; hence Mr Barak’s talk of Iran reaching a stage “which may render any physical strike as impractical”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Fordow has room for 3,000 centrifuges, compared with the 9,000 Iran claims at its first enrichment plant, Natanz. Mr Barak fears that once Fordow is fully equipped Iran will leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That would bring the IAEA’s inspections to an end, as well as its safeguard procedures aimed at tracking nuclear material. North Korea left the NPT in 2003, two years before announcing that it had the bomb and three years before testing one.

Not all Israeli security officials agree with Mr Barak. Some think that the time may already have passed when Israel on its own could carry out such a strike; others reject the idea that Fordow is a uniquely difficult target. Many of their American peers see a focus on Fordow as too narrow. There are less well defended facilities that are also critical to Iranian nuclear ambitions: sites that make centrifuges and missiles, for example.

Iran’s decreasing vulnerability is not the only reason for thinking that, after talking about it for many years, Israel might actually be about to strike. It has been building up its in-air refuelling capacity, and thus its ability to get a lot of planes over targets well inside Iran. And the Arab spring has reduced Iran’s scope for retaliation. The plight of the beleaguered Assad regime in Syria removes Iran’s only significant Arab ally from the fray. A year ago both Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza might have been relied on to rain missiles on Israeli targets after a strike against Iran. Now Hamas is realigning itself away from Iran and towards Egypt, and the situation in Syria means that Hizbullah cannot be certain that, if it fires at Israel, its Iranian-supplied arsenal will be replenished.

Awkward allies

Then there is the American presidential election. Like the Bush administration before it, Barack Obama’s White House sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a huge concern. But it worries that the consequences of an attack on Iran, whether by Israel or America, are unpredictable and scary: oil prices would rocket—at least for a while—endangering the economic recovery; allies in the Gulf already shaken by the Arab spring could be further destabilised; jihadist terrorism could be re-energised; America could be deflected from its primary goal of balancing the power of a rising China in the western Pacific.

Leon Panetta, America’s secretary of defence, says an Israeli attack might delay the advent of an Iranian bomb by “maybe one, possibly two years”, which looks like too little reward for such risks. Mr Obama has insisted that the Israelis give more time for diplomacy, an ever-tightening sanctions regime and intelligence-led efforts to sabotage Iran’s progress. In the period between September last year and January this year Mr Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, both warned Israeli leaders that if they attacked they would be on their own.

But the election may give Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, something to bargain with. In the face of a hawkish Republican rival and in front of an electorate that is in parts fiercely pro-Israel, Mr Obama may feel he has to welcome, or even build on, an Israeli fait accompli in a way he would not have done earlier and might not do after his re-election, should it come about. In March Mr Netanyahu is planning a trip to Washington. He is likely to remind a broadly sympathetic Congress where America’s duty lies in confronting the “existential threat” to Israel. Although Mr Netanyahu is a more cautious character than some suppose, it would be a mistake to think he is bluffing when he says privately that on his watch Iran will not be allowed to take an irreversible step towards the possession of nuclear weapons.

In early February Mr Panetta appeared to reflect the sense that an Israeli attack was becoming increasingly likely when sharing his thoughts with a journalist from the Washington Post. He said he now believed there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would attack Iran between April and June this year. Other sources put the odds of an attack this year a bit over 50%.

Such an attack would be a far more complex undertaking than the Israeli strikes against Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s reactor near al-Kibar in 2007. The Iranian nuclear programme looks as if it has been set up with air strikes in mind. Its sites are spread across more than a dozen supposedly well-defended locations.

Israel would probably pay particular attention to the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow; after them would come the facility at Isfahan that turns uranium into a gas that the centrifuges can work with and the heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak, both of which are above the ground. The larger Russian-built reactor at Bushehr would probably escape unscathed; it is less relevant to weapons work and damage to it could spread contamination across the Gulf.

Israel’s main attack force would consist of two dozen F-15Is and 100 F-16Is, variants of American fighter bombers that have been adapted for long-range missions, along with tankers for aerial refuelling, perhaps supplemented by armed drones and submarine-launched cruise missiles. The planes’ most likely route would be over Jordan and then Iraq, which has almost no air defences. Iran is defended, but mainly by Soviet-era surface-to-air missiles of a kind the Israelis have dealt with before. Iran has fighter aircraft, too, but the Israelis are not too concerned about them.

Plans of attack

Israel has at least 100 two-and-a-quarter tonne (5,000-pound) GBU-28s precision-guided bunker-busting bombs and even more of the smaller GBU-27s. Natanz would be vulnerable to these if they struck with sufficient accuracy and in sufficient numbers.

The biggest question is whether an Israeli strike would have any impact on the centrifuge chamber at Fordow, said to be buried 80 metres deep. According to Austin Long, an academic who used to work for the RAND Corporation, if every one of the F-15Is aimed the GBU-28 it was carrying, along with both its GBU-27s, at a single point, there would be a 35-90% chance of over half the weapons arriving at just the right place and at least one bomb would penetrate the facility. So if carried through with impeccable precision an attack on Fordow would have a reasonable chance of inflicting a bomb’s worth of damage.

But even if things went off without a hitch Iran would retain the capacity to repair and reconstitute its programme. Unless Israel was prepared to target the programme’s technical leadership in civilian research centres and universities the substantial nuclear know-how that Iran has gained over the past decades would remain largely intact. So would its network of hardware suppliers. Furthermore, if Iran is not already planning to leave the NPT such an attack would give it ample excuse to do so, taking its entire programme underground and focusing it on making bombs as soon as possible, rather than building up a threshold capability. Even a successful Israeli strike might thus delay Iran’s progress by only three or four years, while strengthening its resolve.

An American attack might gain five years or even ten; it could drop more bombs on more of the sites, and much bigger bombs—its B-2s carry GBU-57 “Massive Ordnance Penetrators”, weighing almost 14 tonnes. Mindful of its greater capability, in May 2008 Israel’s then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, asked George Bush whether America would, if needed, finish the job that Israel had started and stand by its friend no matter what the consequences. Mr Bush, preoccupied with Iraq, turned him down.

 What are friends for? .
Mr Obama, whose relations with Mr Netanyahu are much cooler than were Mr Bush’s with Mr Olmert, says he is “leaving all options on the table”. An American attack thus remains a possibility, and will continue to be one up to the day Iran fields weapons. But America is unlikely to rush into a strike following an Israeli mission. Administration officials suggest that America would aim to stay firmly on the sidelines, though they are resigned to the fact that, however strong its denials, its complicity would be widely assumed. America would, however, respond vigorously to any attack on its own forces, the oil installations of its allies, or shipping.

Despite a lot of huffing and puffing from Iranian commanders about closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 35% of the world’s seaborne oil passes, Iran lacks the ships and firepower with which to mount a conventional blockade. Mines, torpedo-carrying mini-submarines and anti-ship missiles would still allow the Iranians to damage poorly defended tankers. But a spate of such attacks would probably bring an overwhelming response from the carrier groups of America’s Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain. Iranian action that managed to be more than a nuisance while not provoking a decisive counter-attack by America would require finely judged and innovative tactics.

Wars at home

Nevertheless, to maintain its credibility the Iranian government would feel compelled to retaliate. As well as threatening shipping, it has also said that it will strike back at any Gulf state from which attacks on it are launched. America has bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates; those countries could become targets if Iran chooses to see America as directly implicated in any attack. Iranian strikes on the Gulf states could, in turn, lead America to retaliate against non-nuclear targets in Iran.

Then there are attacks on Israel proper. Although Hizbullah and Hamas may not launch attacks as fiercely as they might have done a year ago, they could still do damage. Iran may also try to hit Israel with its own ballistic missiles, though this would come up against the obstacle of Israel’s missile defences, and could also spur a forthright American response.

A regional conflagration cannot be ruled out. But the biggest downside of an attack on Iran may be the possibility of revived patriotic support for an unpopular and incompetent regime. Even the most virulently anti-regime Iranians today fear that an attack on the country’s nuclear installations could rekindle the revolutionary Islamic patriotism of the Iran-Iraq war, validating decades of paranoid regime propaganda and cementing the Revolutionary Guard’s increasingly firm hold on politics and the economy.

Although such fears may be overdone, so too may be the hopes of some outside Iran that an attack could have the opposite effect, with Iranians turning against the regime. It is true that Iran is embroiled in a power struggle (see article). Parliamentarians have summoned the president for questioning for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Given the level of public disaffection with the regime following a post-election crackdown in 2009 and the economic downturn caused by sanctions (see article), the government can expect only limited sympathy from the public. If retaliatory strikes against shipping, or Gulf oil terminals, or Israel, brought on a subsequent wave of American attacks it might lose even that. This is a reason to expect a relatively restrained reaction to any raid, or one expressed through terrorist attacks far away—such as those mounted last week on Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, Tbilisi and Bangkok.

But discontented though they may be, Iranians are for the most part quite proud of their nuclear programme, seeing no reason why so ancient and grand a nation should not have nuclear weapons. They point out that Pakistan is a far less stable and more dangerous member of the nuclear club than Iran would be, and that Western powers are hypocritical in their tacit acceptance of Israel’s nuclear weapons. Iran, they say, has not launched a war since the 19th century; Israel has never been completely at peace.

This adds to the case that, although bombing could delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it stands little chance of diminishing them; further entrenching them looks more likely. Perhaps, in the time gained by an attack, today’s regime might fall, its place taken by one less committed to nuclear development. But it is also possible that reinvigorated sanctions might convince even today’s regime that the cost of becoming a nuclear power was too high. Coupling sanctions with the threat of an attack may make them yet more convincing—even if, paradoxically, an actual attack would lessen their force.

The sanctions have become so tough, though, only because the world takes the risk of an Israeli attack seriously and it needs an alternative. Sword-rattling can sometimes have its place. But the swords are sharp—and double-edged.

 Nearing a point of no return***
3573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Google fu aka kung fu on: February 26, 2012, 12:38:29 PM
I understand the clarification cool
3574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 26, 2012, 12:19:24 PM
"Yes, it is hard to believe that Clarence Thomas would ever be the Republican nominee. Then again, most people thought an inexperienced African-American often mistaken for a Muslim could never defeat presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, much less be elected president"

Yes but the huge difference one is a politician and the other has never run for office or given any indication he could have any talent to do that.
3575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Economist bombing Iran not the answer on: February 26, 2012, 12:16:58 PM
Authors conclude that at best bombing Iran would delay their program 10 years and risks them becoming even more determined to get one later.  Additionally all the other problems that might arise, increasing nationalism among those who are disenchanted with the present regime, terrorism around the world, missles fired from Gaza, Lebanon, etc. 

I disagree with the analysis.  Israel will have no choice what to do.   And waiting this long has not changed anything except allow the Iranians to dig in their defenses against any attack.  A prospect of a middle East with several nuclear capable countries is worse.  If not for the US than certainly for Israel which can easily be wiped out with just a few bombs.

****Bombing Iran
Nobody should welcome the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. But bombing the place is not the answer
Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition
FOR years Iran has practised denial and deception; it has blustered and played for time. All the while, it has kept an eye on the day when it might be able to build a nuclear weapon. The world has negotiated with Iran; it has balanced the pain of economic sanctions with the promise of reward if Iran unambiguously forsakes the bomb. All the while, outside powers have been able to count on the last resort of a military assault.

Today this stand-off looks as if it is about to fail. Iran has continued enriching uranium. It is acquiring the technology it needs for a weapon. Deep underground, at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, it is fitting out a uranium-enrichment plant that many say is invulnerable to aerial attack. Iran does not yet seem to have chosen actually to procure a nuclear arsenal, but that moment could come soon. Some analysts, especially in Israel, judge that the scope for using force is running out. When it does, nothing will stand between Iran and a bomb.

The air is thick with the prophecy of war. Leon Panetta, America’s defence secretary, has spoken of Israel attacking as early as April. Others foresee an Israeli strike designed to drag in Barack Obama in the run-up to America’s presidential vote, when he will have most to lose from seeming weak.

A decision to go to war should be based not on one man’s electoral prospects, but on the argument that war is warranted and likely to succeed. Iran’s intentions are malign and the consequences of its having a weapon would be grave. Faced by such a regime you should never permanently forswear war. However, the case for war’s success is hard to make. If Iran is intent on getting a bomb, an attack would delay but not stop it. Indeed, using Western bombs as a tool to prevent nuclear proliferation risks making Iran only more determined to build a weapon—and more dangerous when it gets one.

A shadow over the Middle East

Make no mistake, an Iran armed with the bomb would pose a deep threat. The country is insecure, ideological and meddles in its neighbours’ affairs. Both Iran and its proxies—including Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—might act even more brazenly than they do now. The danger is keenly felt by Israel, surrounded by threats and especially vulnerable to a nuclear bomb because it is such a small land. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently called the “Zionist regime” a “cancerous tumour that must be cut out”. Jews, of all people, cannot just dismiss that as so much rhetoric.

Even if Iran were to gain a weapon only for its own protection, others in the region might then feel they need weapons too. Saudi Arabia has said it will arm—and Pakistan is thought ready to supply a bomb in exchange for earlier Saudi backing of its own programme. Turkey and Egypt, the other regional powers, might conclude they have to join the nuclear club. Elsewhere, countries such as Brazil might see nuclear arms as vital to regional dominance, or fear that their neighbours will.

Some experts argue that nuclear-armed states tend to behave responsibly. But imagine a Middle East with five nuclear powers riven by rivalry and sectarian feuds. Each would have its fingers permanently twitching over the button, in the belief that the one that pressed first would be left standing. Iran’s regime gains legitimacy by demonising foreign powers. The cold war seems stable by comparison with a nuclear Middle East—and yet America and the Soviet Union were sometimes scarily close to Armageddon.

The dream of pre-emption

No wonder some people want a pre-emptive strike. But military action is not the solution to a nuclear Iran. It could retaliate, including with rocket attacks on Israel from its client groups in Lebanon and Gaza. Terror cells around the world might strike Jewish and American targets. It might threaten Arab oil infrastructure, in an attempt to use oil prices to wreck the world economy. Although some Arab leaders back a strike, most Muslims are unlikely to feel that way, further alienating the West from the Arab spring. Such costs of an attack are easy to overstate, but even supposing they were high they might be worth paying if a strike looked like working. It does not.

Striking Iran would be much harder than Israel’s successful solo missions against the weapons programmes of Iraq, in 1981, and Syria, in 2007. If an attack were easy, Israel would have gone in alone long ago, when the Iranian programme was more vulnerable. But Iran’s sites are spread out and some of them, hardened against strikes, demand repeated hits. America has more military options than Israel, so it would prefer to wait. That is one reason why it is seeking to hold Israel back. The other is that, for either air force, predictions of the damage from an attack span a huge range. At worst an Israeli mission might fail altogether, at best an American one could, it is said, set back the programme a decade (see article).

But uncertainty would reign. Iran is a vast, populous and sophisticated country with a nuclear programme that began under the shah. It may have secret sites that escape unscathed. Even if all its sites are hit, Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be bombed out of existence. Nor can its network of suppliers at home and abroad. It has stocks of uranium in various stages of enrichment; an unknown amount would survive an attack, while the rest contaminated an unforeseeable area. Iran would probably withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which its uranium is watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency. At that point its entire programme would go underground—literally and figuratively. If Iran decided it needed a bomb, it would then be able to pursue one with utmost haste and in greater secrecy. Saudi Arabia and the others might conclude that they, too, needed to act pre-emptively to gain their own deterrents.

Perhaps America could bomb Iran every few years. But how would it know when and where to strike? And how would it justify a failing policy to the world? Perhaps, if limited bombing is not enough, America should be aiming for an all-out aerial war, or even regime change. Yet a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated where that leads. An aerial war could dramatically raise the threat of retaliation. Regime change might produce a government that the West could do business with. But the nuclear programme has broad support in Iran. The idea that a bomb is the only defence against an implacable American enemy might become stronger than ever.

Get real

That does not mean the world should just let Iran get the bomb. The government will soon be starved of revenues, because of an oil embargo. Sanctions are biting, the financial system is increasingly isolated and the currency has plunged in value. Proponents of an attack argue that military humiliation would finish the regime off. But it is as likely to rally Iranians around their leaders. Meanwhile, political change is sweeping across the Middle East. The regime in Tehran is divided and it has lost the faith of its people. Eventually, popular resistance will spring up as it did in 2009. A new regime brought about by the Iranians themselves is more likely to renounce the bomb than one that has just witnessed an American assault.

Is there a danger that Iran will get a nuclear weapon before that happens? Yes, but bombing might only increase the risk. Can you stop Iran from getting a bomb if it is determined to have one? Not indefinitely, and bombing it might make it all the more desperate. Short of occupation, the world cannot eliminate Iran’s capacity to gain the bomb. It can only change its will to possess one. Just now that is more likely to come about through sanctions and diplomacy than war.****

3576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Question on: February 26, 2012, 12:04:09 PM

Did you mean "follow up"?
3577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Here is one allusion to Kissinger on: February 25, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
A little vague but there is a vague allusion to Kissinger being on the take to a Chinese government's technology tech company.

Well I guess he had to impress his celebrity girlfriends (Jill St John among others) somehow (money?).  Certainly not his looks though I guess it could have been his brains:,1858930
3578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Xi Jinging "we welcome China" on: February 25, 2012, 08:39:12 AM
Stated by Obama to the presumed next leader of China.  He has children going to Harvard and does business here in the US frequently.   He is also a son of a Mao Communist and perfectly capable of poltical crackdowns at home.

Seems to me Sun Tzu would be very proud.  They are not just "competing" with us.  They are at war with us for dominance IMO.

Larry Ellison the CEO of Oracle operates his business like a Samurai warrior.  Sun Tzu sells as much as a businees book as for military doctrine.

At the very least it seems clear to me China is competing with us as warriors. 

So do we play dumb in public like Obama and play rough behind the scenes (I think, I hope we are doing that) or do we publically call their bluff?

*** Breaking Now:Obama CampaignMiddle EastNational SecurityThe Obama EconomySearch   Xi Jinping: The Princelings’ Prince
Next leader of China sends daughter to Harvard, crushes dissent

Xi Jinping / AP
BY: Bill Gertz - February 16, 2012 5:00 am
During Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington, D.C., this week, the media glossed over several facts about the man expected to be China’s next supreme ruler, including his ties to the Chinese military, his connections to U.S. business interests, and his past role in violations of Tibet’s human rights.

Xi is the most powerful of China’s “princelings,” the term for powerful offspring of Chinese communist leaders past and present. Princelings control key sectors of China’s government and economy, drive western luxury cars, and send their spouses and children to the United States to live and work.

Xi is no exception.

At the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC), Xi worked as an office secretary under Gen. Geng Biao for three years beginning in 1979. The work for the military commission is significant since it holds the key to power in China.

Geng’s fortunes rose after he was ordered to take control of broadcast and television stations from the communist faction headed by Mao’s wife and three others known as the Gang of Four. The quelling of the gang led to the rise of reformer Deng Xiaoping, who put China on its current modernization path and away from the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution.

Xi’s wife is a singer in the People’s Liberation Army and performs in a PLA uniform, further highlighting his ties to the military. His daughter, Xi Mingze, secretly attends Harvard under a cover name and her two-dozen man security detail may be collecting intelligence for the Chinese, according to U.S. officials.

The son of Xi Zhongxun, a first-generation communist revolutionary who died in 2002, Xi was picked several years ago to become the party’s General Secretary in place of current Secretary Hu Jintao during a major conference expected this fall.

If the communist succession takes place as planned, observers predict Xi likely will get only half the power at first and Hu will remain head of the CMC, the party organ that runs the military and is the ultimate power in China.

Xi is one of a number of several princelings who have come under scrutiny in China from more doctrinaire communists. The power of the hardline element continues to grow in China; though they welcome China’s growing prosperity, they believe the regime is insufficiently Marxist-Leninist as developed under Mao Zedong.

One such hardliner is Bo Xilai, the provincial Party chief in Chongqing accused of corruption by deputy mayor Wang Lijun, a subordinate who tried to defect to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu but was turned away after spending the night in the consulate.

Bo is considered a “neo-Maoist” and is pushing for a seat on the nine-member Politburo Standing Committee, the collective dictatorship that controls China.

Bo, like Xi, is a princeling and his son, like Xi’s daughter, is a student at Harvard.

Many of the communist princelings live or travel frequently to the United States and are engaged in business dealings, interacting with and influencing American policy analysts and businessmen.

For example, during Xi’s Washington visit, the incoming leader met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who runs Kissinger Associates and who helps U.S. companies get business deals in China. Xi also met former Clinton administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger during the visit. Berger’s Stonebridge International also does business in China.

Xi met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a spokesman said the meeting included a “wide-ranging discussion, with Xi urging the U.S. and China to strengthen military exchanges.”

But a U.S. official said that Panetta was surprised by Xi’s lack of candor or response to questions regarding cyber intrusions and advanced weapons, among other issues.

A second U.S. official also said Panetta would travel to China.

Owing in part to his family position and in part to his future place in the Chinese hierarchy, it is difficult to pin down Xi’s exact policy sentiments.

Human rights issues are a stumbling block for Xi and his U.S. counterparts; human rights watchdogs have criticized Xi during the visit for his role in ongoing repression in China.

The group Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) issued a report that said the wining and dining of the communist leader in Washington is taking place at the same time China is cracking down on dissidents.

Tibet has been a major target of the Chinese in recent months, as several Tibetan monks have set themselves on fire to protest Chinese repression.

Xi traveled to Tibet in July with Chen Bignde, chief of the military’s general staff to celebrate the 60th anniversary of what China calls the “peaceful liberation of Tibet.” The Chinese takeover involved a military assault on the mountainous region that included mass killings and shelling of Buddhist monasteries.

“This seems a strange time for the U.S. to engage in diplomatic niceties or goodwill overtures to China’s likely future president,” said CHRD International Director Renee Xia. “The U.S. should instead hold Xi and other Chinese leaders to account for the Chinese government’s escalating human rights violations at home and its heartless position towards the suffering of the Syrian people.”

China vetoed a U.N. resolution earlier this month that would have condemned Syria’s government for the brutal crackdown in Syria.

Xia said the Obama administration should highlight the worsening human rights abuses in China.

President Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made only vague references in public during the Xi visit to China’s human rights abuses, its unfair trade and industrial practices, its military buildup, and its weapons proliferation to rogue states.

The CHRD said that it is “uncertain” whether Xi’s rise to power later this year will lead to improvements in China’s human rights or for future political reform.

CHRD said Xi was Communist Party secretary in Zhejiang from 2002 to 2007, one of the worst periods for democracy and human rights activists in the affluent coastal province, where rampant human rights violations were reported and for which Xi was not held accountable.

“While Xi held a position with the highest authority in the province, the Zhejiang government stood out in its zealous persecution of political dissidents, writers, underground Christians, and human rights activists,” the group said.

Xi also directed the round up and repression of democracy and rights advocates in China prior to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

This entry was posted in China and tagged China, hu jintao, Xi Jinping. Bookmark the permal
3579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: February 24, 2012, 02:28:07 PM
"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."

I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law.   So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?

"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"

That is the truth. 

I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?

3580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: February 24, 2012, 10:19:34 AM
Sort of like Marc Levin's broadcast last night who responded to Brockster's assertion that went something like, "Republicans have three answers for the gas problem: drill drill drill."

Levin pointed out the shear stupidity and contempt for Americans by this comment.  Gas doesn't come from gas pumps.  Yes to get  it we have to drill.  And no we can't replace oil with wind and solar.

3581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brock is a bit nervous if you ask me on: February 23, 2012, 04:30:45 PM
Brock also with corporate tax plan.  At least the idea of fixing taxes has traction if the biggest White House liberal is running scared enough to try to beat the Repubs to the punch with his won tax plan before his election.

Let's see him running for cover -

Suddenly he is a big fan of natural gas.

Suddenly whispers from the WH that military force in Iran may be needed.

Suddenly the Bamster is for corporate tax streamlining.

Doesn't fit with his usual narative does it.

Of course we have also lerned not to trust what he says but watch what he and his minions (like Eric Holder) do.
3582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 23, 2012, 01:51:45 PM

Take heart from this poll just off drudge.  Like DMG pointed out, its way to early:
3583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: February 22, 2012, 02:48:21 PM
Coincidence you post quote from T. Jefferson.  while looking around the webiste of the National Muesem of African American History and Culture I came across this photo of "Jefferson", aka Isaac Granger who died a free man in the 1840s and hence this photo of him exists.  He, his two brothers, and parents were slaves of Jefferson:

Question posed:

"how could the author of the Declaration of Independence have also been a slave owner?"

I don't know how to answer that except that the Declaration can be seen as aspirational and since no one was or is perfect we all strive to live up to its stated goal.
3584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 22, 2012, 01:57:13 PM

No offense taken and your posts are very informative.

"law, writ large, has said that they... and people and political institutions have accepted and acquiecsed." 

My only question would be have the "people" really accepted and acquiesced.

The people don't have a say in Court decisions.   Most don't even know what is going on.  And I don't recall ever being asked if it was OK to hoist on the "majority" requirements for wheelchair parking spots and wheelchair ramps.

As for the disabilities thing I guess it is part legislative and part judicial.

As for the gay marriage issue I suppose it is part "the squeaky wheel" - gay infatada, mass media opinion, demogaguery, party politics.
I do not beleive most people in the US believe in gay marriage or adoption.  I do believe that most probably don't care about bothering gays otherwise.  A poll that is announced that most believe gay marriage is ok?  Oh comon!

But that is media manipulation. 

I am rambling here.

"the Constitution, and also that it has holes, and also that there has to be interpretation"

Back to your point - agreed.

3585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / special accomodations for disabled. on: February 22, 2012, 12:56:51 PM
As a physician I know we are not loved.  Now we are part of the 1% (thanks to Columbia Univerity professor Jeff Sachs - who I am sure has donated every cent from his books, magazine writings, salary and MSNBC appearances to starving children all around the world). 

I don't complain much about malpractice and there are many excellent ethical attorneys.  But this?
3586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 22, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
There is no end to the situations that can arise.

One aspect of the the disability situation is the requirement for disabled parking places mandated.  And wheelchair access.

I was thinking a lot about this.   While it is a "nice" and compassionate I still don't get why everyone else is required to circumnavigate these accomodations and business entities must pay for all this for the minority disabled.

Yes, if I ever get stuck in a wheelchair I will think differently due to emotion...

I don't get the "entitlement" adjective to this.  Why are there so entitlements that cost many people money to pay for?

Why are not the payers entitled to their money?
3587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: February 22, 2012, 12:31:50 PM
"What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place."

 Well all you need do is recognize Israel "guarantee" a peaceful co-existence and you won't have to go on hunger strikes.


3588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Santorum on: February 21, 2012, 04:15:49 PM
"That pretty much says it all. With Santorum launching one social issues bomb after another, there is no time to talk about the economy. Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt? At the moment, that prospect does not seem far-fetched."

I think a lot of Repubs active in primaries are tea party types and libertarians.  The latter are Ron Paul followers and the former are anyone with extremely strict conservative values that is willing to take a stand and fight.

Radio hosts like Levin are staunchly for these candidates like Santorum.  He was a giant supporter of Bachman, Palin and that girl in Deleware and the one in Nevada.   They did get some elected.

While I personally support most of all their views to ignore the middle of the road voters who vote with what ever the whim of the day is is suicide for the party.  Levin is wrong.  We cannot just get anyone in there just because they are conservative.  We will lose.  And that IS worse - not better.

None of these people have the charisma to charm over the "independents" or whatever else that voting group(s) is called.  Maybe Newt could have if he wasn't as Crafty aptly put, "flawed".

Mitt doesn't have a lot of charisma but his views are more mainstream and hopefully will appeal to the deciding block of voters that somehow always seem to go with the flow.  And the flow is can Obama bribe more of them then could be convinced they are not better off then four years ago and Mitt can improve upon that.

Since Mitt is not charismatic the election may well be determined as some predict - by how the economy  is doing in Nov.

I am hoping the economy tanks - for one month before the election and rebounds in time for Mitt in 01/14.  grin
3589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 21, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
"A gay person can stay single of course, but they do not have the right to pursue their happiness and marry the person of their choice.  It's like black and white.  And by not being able to marry the person of their choice, besides the personal issues, they are denied numerous other benefits of a married couple."


You are missing the point.  They do have the right to live with whomever they want and persue their happiness.

But you hit the nail on the head about the benefits.  A lot of this is all about money.

It is not "black and white" which of course is always used as the argument.  It is not race.

I guess we could say it is gender.  Certainly exact gender equality IS an agenda with liberals.

The family structure is suffering from all this.  That is a price we are paying.
3590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 21, 2012, 02:07:15 PM
"but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution"

Exactly.  Accomodations that the majority now have to make for disabled minority is only because of laws passed by laws intended for compasionate reasons.   

A law can thus be passed that makes virtually anything an entitlement by people's "representatives".

In a way however this law does make the majority actually have ot make way for SPECIAL accomodations for the disabled.

I suppose laws that held for racial considerations in say college admissions could be also thus categorized.

I suppose that passing gay marriage into a law is not 'special' per se but allowing that minority the same government recognized privilege as non gays.

The gay marriage thing is a movement that will continue on ithrough infinity till they get what they insist on.

The majority can argue forever it is just a matter of time before the mority says al right we have had enough.

Here is what you want now will please stop the "reverse harrasment".

3591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 21, 2012, 10:06:23 AM

Good point.  No need to panic as it is way too early.   The Repubs have not consolidated and are not focused on Obama and the MSM is having a great time yucking up their attacking each other.   

When reporters go out on the street and ask pedestrian basic questions about politics, the direction of the country, history, etc.  It is amazing how little people know.  It seems most people are not paying attention or thinking beyond the headlines if even that.

I guess that is one reason why it is so easy to bribe people for votes and blame the "rich".

Gallup says the unempolyment rate is 9% - watch for all sorts of explanations why this is wrong for the OBama outlets, why their calculations are misleading and for the WH to dispute the numbers, and finally "it would be far worse without Obama".  Anything but the truth and accepting any responsibility.
3592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Scientific American Michael Mann on: February 20, 2012, 02:40:35 PM
I am not for or against "climate change" resulting from human behavior.  I am simply confused.

***Michael Mann Defends Climate Computer Models
Penn State climate modeler Michael Mann talks about what computer models can tell us--and what they don't need to. David Biello reports

January 10, 2012 | 120

"Even in high school my idea of a good time was sitting in front of a computer and solving problems." Climatologist Michael Mann. “And that has always been true. I love using computational methods to learn about the way, hopefully, the way the world actually works.”

Some critics, such as physicist Freeman Dyson, charge that climate change science relies too much on such computer models. And even worse, that the climate scientists behind them are too much in love with their computational creations. Such mathematical approximations are crude, failing to capture the real world climate impacts of a cloud, for example. That makes them useful for understanding climate but not for predicting climate change, Dyson has argued. I asked Mann in a recent phone interview how he responded to such arguments.

"I have to wonder if Freeman Dyson will get on an airplane or if he’ll drive a car because a lot of the modern day conveniences of life and a lot of our technological innovations of modern life are based on phenomena so complicated that we need to be able to construct models of them before we deploy that technology.

“In the case of the climate, of course, there is only one Earth, so we can’t do experiments with multiple Earths and formulate the science of climate change as if it’s an entirely observationally based, controlled experiment. We need to rely on conceptual models of the system we’re studying and it’s no different in any other field of science. In fact, the way science progresses is by conceptual models being put forward and then testing them against observations. One of the most, I think, striking examples of that was just within the last month, this announcement, the Higgs Boson.

“Its existence was predicted by the standard model of particle physics and the fact that there’s—we got a glimpse of it, it looks like it may very well be there—is a real victory for that model of science where you test, you put forward conceptual models of the way the world or the universe works and test those models against the observations and see the extent to which they can predict new observations and when they do, it gives you increased confidence in the models.

“It’s no different in the case of climate change.  The models are simply at some level a formulation of our conceptual understanding and when someone says they don't like models then I’m wondering what alternative they have in mind.

“How do they formalize their conceptual understanding? Through back-of-the-envelope, poorly conceived thought experiments?  It's somewhat bewildering when I hear something like that from a premier scientist, and I think it belies a misunderstanding of the way models are used. In climate science, for example, where we don't need an elaborate climate model to understand the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, so at some level the fact that increased CO2 warms the planet is a consequence of very basic physics and chemistry.

“The details, how much warming you get, depend on things like feedbacks. And you can’t incorporate feedbacks through a back of the envelope approach.  You actually have to critically think about the interactions that take place in this very complex system. And those feedbacks ultimately determine the extent to which that initial warming will be amplified, but they don’t even change the fact that you elevate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and you’ll get a warming of the surface. That’s basic physics and chemistry and people who claim that they don’t believe that, they don’t believe we’re warming the planet through increasing CO2 levels because of climate models, they don’t understand the fact that you don’t need a climate model to come to that conclusion. It's basic physics and chemistry.

“The climate models come in because we wanna know how that's modified by feedback.  What are the important feedbacks?  How will atmospheric circulation patterns change? And again, does Freeman Dyson, assuming he is willing to get on an airplane even though models have been used to test the performance of the airplane, assuming he does and he knows he’s going somewhere where they’ve predicted, where weather models have predicted rainfall for the next seven days, does he not pack his umbrella because he doesn’t believe the models? It's just in that case the worst that will happen is somebody gets wet when they wouldn’t otherwise have. In this case, the worst that can happen is that we ruin the planet.”

—David Biell

Makes you wonder why to spite such easily obtained search results the science ignorati continue to insists the models are wrong. It is like they have no interests in the science but protecting some int
2. pterostyrax
12:02 PM 1/10/12Freeman Dyson has it right and Michael Mann has it wrong.

Here are just a few of the areas in which the GCMs and conclusions drawn from them are unequivocally wrong.

1. GCMs do not solve the original partial differential equations describing all of the mechanisms included in the models. They solve modified equations that are approximations of the originals, which, by definition, introduce errors in the solution.

2. GCMs require numerical rather than exact solutions of the equations. The numerical solutions introduce additional errors in reproducing the modified equations particularly with regards to the temporal/spatial scales used in the solution and the type of grid chosen to define the physical space modeled.

3. Once the forms of the modified equations and the temporal and spatial scales have been chosen, then one must setup initial and boundary conditions that define and then drive the simulations. Huge errors are introduced in the simulations as a result of uncertainties in defining these boundary conditions for all the myriad processes necessary in GCMs. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the boundary conditions are specified.

4. The myriad processes involving physical, chemical, and biological interactions have their own problems including important processes left out and incomplete mathematical descriptions of the ones included with numerous simplifying assumptions, but the greatest problem is how the processes are parameterized and the specification of these parameters. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the parameters are specified.

5. Even if all the previously described problems could be eliminated, GCMs, or any model for that matter, cannot predict the future. They can only say what would have happened given the proscribed initial and boundary conditions. No one can know the boundary conditions for the future.

Admittedly, the previous is a very brief discussion of why Dyson is right and Mann is wrong. I could easily write a long paper or even a book on the subject, but I will exit this comment with the following statement - If you can give the same model to 10 different modelers and obtain 10 different results, then that aint science, or at least what I have always believed to be science.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
3. pterostyrax
in reply to Trent1492
12:13 PM 1/10/12Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures? Additionally, on another graph in the IPCC report, why are the results of 14 (I believe this number is correct) different GCMs averaged and then included in the comparison of computed versus observed temperatures?

I am fairly certain I know why.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
4. Trent1492
12:32 PM 1/10/12pterostyrax Says: Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures?

Trent Says: Each models makes different assumptions about the future input of CO2. If you had even a smidgen of knowledge you would have know that one, Riddler.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
5. Trent1492
12:35 PM 1/10/12Anyone else wondering why Pterostyrax will not address the fact of the models and temperature match that is found in the peer reviewed literature? It is like he is in denial of reality. Funny that.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
6. pterostyrax
in reply to Trent1492
12:56 PM 1/10/12This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant.

I do not mind the ad hominem, but at least get it right when you conduct one.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
7. Trent1492
01:13 PM 1/10/12Pterostyrax Says: This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant.

Shorter Pterostryax: Please ignore the graph with observed temperatures and the models that reproduce them.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
8. just1observer
01:41 PM 1/10/12Michael Mann speaks the truth.

I believe that for Freeman Dyson to malign the accuracy of the current versions of weather models is a false issue and a cheep shot at weather scientists in general. Moreover, arguing over the accuracy of various weather models misses the main issues about the science of weather prediction and global warming.

There are a few things that we know from weather scientists with a high degree of confidence: (1) the earth is indeed warming; (2) human activity is indeed making a meaningful contribution to that global warming; (3) global warming is changing and will continue to change global weather patterns through a very complex set of interactions that we are only just beginning to identify, better yet fully understand, and (4)weather scientists who construct these models to try to identify and understand these interactions and then predict the consequences to test and improve their models are very much on the right track.

These scientific efforts should be supported by the larger scientific community as well as the public. It is an imperative for this science to advance.

If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
9. Trent1492
01:46 PM 1/10/12I think at least one note of clarification needs to be put here. It is blatantly obvious that Pterostyrax is engaging in obfuscation. Climate science has been making predictions and successful observations of those predictions since 1896. When Svante Arrhenius constructed a model of the atmosphere using nothing more than pencil and paper he made several key predictions:

1. Nights would warm faster days.

2. Winters would warm faster than Summers.

3. The Arctic would warm faster than anywhere else.

All of these predictions have been observed in the 20th and 21st century. Pterostyrax and friends want the public to not know of these and other successful predictions because their interests lay in the public being confused and ignorant. That is why they never ever address them. Ever.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
10. pterostyrax
in reply to just1observer
02:21 PM 1/10/12"If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice."

No argument here. My and Dyson's argument is that the models are currently not ready for prime time for the reasons I elucidated among many more that could be brought to bear on the efficacy of GCMs. Because one can throw a host of equations at the real world does not mean that the set of the previous has any bearing on the latter. Point in question - Long Term Capital's economic numerical models.

However, the need to improve the modeling efforts does not change the fact that the current status of GCMs in providing some semblance of the real world and conclusions drawn therefrom is greatly lacking any firm basis regarding sound science.

3593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: February 20, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
" is beginning to prepare for a face-off with [Rick] Santorum, just in case the former Pennsylvania senator captures the Republican nomination. The conventional wisdom among both Democrats and Republicans is that Obama would seek to tear Santorum limb-from-limb with attacks on his positions on abortion, contraception, and, now, prenatal testing."

Absolutely.  CNN and MSNBC are immediately all over this.  I don't recall whether it soloDAD or Kyra Phillips this AM with a sarcastic tone and detectable smug look asked someone about Santorum with, " I hear he is questioning Obama's theology"?

Never do any of these people ever question a peeping thing about Obama or use sarcastic tones and facial expressions.

Could anyone imagine her asking, "I heard Obama said they cling to their religion and guns" with any tone of disrespect?

I have to say though Santorum did not *sound* great defending himself this AM.
3594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The only new thing is a Presidential election on: February 20, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
The only thing new about Iran and nuclear weapons is the US election.   Nothing has changed.  All along it is obvious they are hell bent on getting them and nothing can stop them short of military force or some unexpected miracle.

The Republicans have sided with Israel on this.  Apparantly Obama is feeling the heat before his election and now he must decide what to do for his own skin - not Israel's.
3595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: February 19, 2012, 11:39:57 AM
"The tenor of this piece is at considerable variance from GB."

Exactly my thoughts.  That is why I question the veracity or intellectual honesty of the author of the Wikipedia piece.  Based on that piece I question why GB and others (Hannity) hold Sunstein out as a looney liberal.  OTOH are GB and others the ones who are exaggerating?   I doubt they are.  Far more likely the Wikipedia piece is tempered to camouflage the truth.
Just like Obama conceals who he really is.  All the same with liberals.  They cannot tell us what they really think and aspire to.

Not if they want to stay in office unless they are from Barney Frank's (now ANOTHER freakin Kennedy's) or Pelosi's districts.
3596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: February 19, 2012, 11:33:13 AM
Well it is ironic that on one hand we have the gays making a big deal out of gay marriage (I can only wonder if it is all about the money somehow with regards to estates, taxes etc) while at the very same time we have a collapse of the insitution in the heterosexual side of the country. 

Divorce rates over 50%, single parenthood over 50% under age 30 and especially for the blue collars, minorities etc.

I guess one could argue that homosexuals fighting for this "right" is in a way a fight to preseve it as an insitution.

Yet nothing is stopping them from living together, working and the rest.  It has to be either some sort of in your face to the non gay community, or, gays are just as normal as non gays and not just living an alternative lifestyle, or about financial issues that come up related to marriage.  Or a combination thereof.

Who cares anymore when someone is gay?  I am fatigued by all this infatada about marriage, adoption, bullying (for God's sake if I turn on CNN one more time to see Anderson Cooper making a school bullying incident into an international scandal....)... the point is now I feel like I am the one being harrassed.  Yes I know I can change the TV station.
3597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs/Sunstein on: February 19, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
The Economist has a lot to say about US government *over*regulation in this week's issue.  I saw this article on Cass Sunstein who is decried from the right as a big liberal.   Sunstein is marketed by the WH as being this big government 'spending/cut' Czar.   A lot of smoke and mirrors as one would expect from the Obama WH.  That said not all of Sunstein's opinions are that liberal though his stance on taxes certainly is one of a big liberal government cheerleader (see the Wikipedia piece on him below; I read with some skepticism for the objectivity of what shows up in Wikipedia).   

Certainly in making its analyses the OIRA appears to exaggerates the benefits, and minimize the costs of  any government program the WH wants to promote or conversely cut:

****..Deleting regulations
Of Sunstein and sunsets
Many barriers impede regulatory reform. The poor quality of the laws Congress produces is among the biggest
Feb 18th 2012 | NEW YORK | from the print edition

The busy nudgemeister .
CHEERS greeted Barack Obama’s hiring of Cass Sunstein away from the University of Chicago. Mr Sunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge of lifting the heavy hand of regulation from America’s economy. Known for his clever economics, Mr Sunstein favours a “libertarian paternalism”; policies that nudge, but do not force, people to do the right things. For example, making people opt out instead of opting in to pension plans makes many more sign up, to their benefit. And Mr Sunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiency stickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obama telling every agency to slim its rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580 proposals received from the departments under his purview. (Independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission are not among them.) And he says real savings are on the way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems will save $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in the Medicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies have responded not grudgingly (the old stereotype of bureaucrats loth to surrender cash or power), but eagerly.
But the Obama administration has added to the rule book at the same time as it is trimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact (not necessarily a net cost) of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. In George Bush’s first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits than costs, as the agencies’ economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. The overall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study for the Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008, though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the World Bank, which one of the bank’s researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it as “an urban myth”.

Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimising costs by counting only hours spent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs may be found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. At the same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued (see article). The agencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no one doubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must go through the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: comment periods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulated industries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs into compliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. A second idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits, modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a board of outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closure commission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet another is creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created an “Office of the Repealer”, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governor and legislature. Lastly, automatic “sunsets” of laws have their fans, though Congress could mindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills (and a bitterly divided Congress might allow good laws to lapse).

Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress more heavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind of thing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, not subsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of America’s regulatory woes. (No one has been foolish enough to suggest that Congress has become wiser since then.) Jim Cooper, a Democratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: “People vote on things they have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read.” He further despairs of the power of special interests to bend Congress’s will: “There is a pimento lobby,” he says of those who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served inside olives. “You do not want to cross the pimento people.” In such an environment, getting things undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.****

More on Cass - he is a dog person  grin:
3598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / No Mars gold rush in 20"49" on: February 19, 2012, 09:48:46 AM
3599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: NASA, Space programs on: February 19, 2012, 09:45:46 AM
I wonder if there is any gold on Mars?   The trip could pay for itself
3600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Decline, Fall, (and Resurrection?) of America on: February 19, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
Great post BG.  Fascinating discussion.  Lots to talk about.  Just some thoughts:

There is no mention (unless I missed it) of the difference between the nation wrecking entitlements we have in the US compared to China.  Does China face this problem.  Demographically doesn't China have a problem down the road with its one child policy essentially creating a future aging demographic burden  which is I read already an issue in Japan?

The economic interdependence of powers does indeed seem to make the prospect of destructive forms of war less likely.

But what about "soft" war?   (akin to soft power).  For example disabling our military through controlling the electronic brain center.

The people of our country now are far more focused on who is going to pay for the soaring costs health care, their retirements, help for increasing children of single parents, the soaring cost of higher education, etc.

Transfering wealth from those who have more to those who have less is not going to keep this country number one.  WE have become a nanny state.

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 124
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!